wombatK wrote:Part of what raised questions about LA was that people could review his climbing performance against others in thepeloton using real-time gps + powermeter data, and conclude that he was 5% faster than "the rest" on climbs.

The UCI closed the peephole that put such data on view (or was it a loophole) and now prevents publication of such data.

The UCI has not prevented publication of data. It has simply prevented live data feeds, which has more to do with media deals, than "covering up" the data. The data is available to anyone if the rider/coach/team choose to publish it.

Anyone who wants to know how fast riders climb just needs a watch. Don't need power meters or GPS for that.

Recycler wrote:G,Day, The USADA is a private company, what right have to charge or strip anyone? Bob.

You shouldn't need to ask. Examples abound. There is no shortage of examples and the practice is not even new.

Try your local stock exchange typically (always?) a publcly listed company charged with specific responsibilities and having the full weight of law behind them. Ditto various industry boards and trade bodies and probably a raft of them that I have never heard of.

greyhoundtom wrote:There is no doubt that LA, like many cyclists and athletes in general at that time, was exposed to PED’s as a youngster by his coach, and looking at the timeline involved, the most likely PED first used would have been Testosterone, as this not only increases lean fast twitch muscle tissue but also increases the desire and ability to train harder, and was freely available at that time.

However while the use of Testosterone increases the chance of liver damage, there is no evidence to suggest that it directly causes either testicular or prostate cancer even with long term use, so to say that the use of PED’s most likely caused LA’s cancer in the first place, is a long bow to draw.......................and yes the fact that those that were involved, including LA himself, in the promotion of the use of PED’s are still being employed in cycling at various levels is a major concern.

I wouldn't be so sure about that...evidence is emerging that use of certain recreational drugs increases the risk of testicular cancer, and that high levels of testosterone increases the risk of prostate cancer.

And there are well-known links between testosterone and the incidence of breast cancer in women.

Last edited by RonK on Mon Sep 10, 2012 3:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

While the information on the role of private organisations has been explained, USADA do not strip anyone of anything.

All USADA (or relevant in country ADAs) do is to report on the outcomes of their testing or investigations to the relevant sport's governing body and/or organisations. It's the governing body for any given sport (and relevant organisers) that are responsible for removing the titles and associated benefits from a rider (but that process is an automatic requirement following such a report).

Failure by a sport's governing body to do so is a breach of the WADA code, and that is punishable by removal of the sport from the Olympic Games. They can of course appeal to the Court of Arbitration in Sport to have the ADA's report overturned.

The rules on this are detailed in the WADA Code, available on the WADA website.

Alex Simmons/RST wrote:<Snip>Obviously he had some genetic gifts, they all do at that level. But he did "benefit" from a systematic doping program since he was 18 years old (suggest reading up on when Carmichael was running the USAC "coaching" program), and there is reason to consider this was a factor in getting cancer to start with. How people like Carmichael are permitted to still be involved with the sport makes me sick.<Snip>

There is no doubt that LA, like many cyclists and athletes in general at that time, was exposed to PED’s as a youngster by his coach, and looking at the timeline involved, the most likely PED first used would have been Testosterone, as this not only increases lean fast twitch muscle tissue but also increases the desire and ability to train harder, and was freely available at that time.

However while the use of Testosterone increases the chance of liver damage, there is no evidence to suggest that it directly causes either testicular or prostate cancer even with long term use, so to say that the use of PED’s most likely caused LA’s cancer in the first place, is a long bow to draw.......................and yes the fact that those that were involved, including LA himself, in the promotion of the use of PED’s are still being employed in cycling at various levels is a major concern.

It ought to be obvious when this thread has gone to 12 pages plus 21 on the other thread that lots of people care about it.

As mentioned in a number of posts, there are serious concerns about how littleLivestrong does for cancer research (these days, nada, zip), and how much of LA's involvement is self-serving. At times in the past as much as 55 cents in thedollar donated to Livestrong has been used in running Livestrong - an appallingly high proportion that raises serious doubts on its purpose.

If your point is that whatever good LA has done justifies any amount ofdoping/cheating, it would be farcically easy for riders to cheat and win at the TDFand on any sporting arena.

For now, it appears that the WADA rules don't allow such an easy escape from its sanctions.Although its unlikely Armstrong will lose much of the $140+ million he's earned from hiscycling, his future earnings might be limited.

Time will tell whether his PED use has any health impacts that might limit his enjoymentof this wealth, if his cancer was not a sign of that already.

Cheers

WombatK

Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us -Jerry Garcia

wombatK wrote:As mentioned in a number of posts, there are serious concerns about how littleLivestrong does for cancer research (these days, nada, zip), and how much of LA's involvement is self-serving. At times in the past as much as 55 cents in thedollar donated to Livestrong has been used in running Livestrong - an appallingly high proportion that raises serious doubts on its purpose.

Not a lot different to a lot of other charities that don't have LA connected to them. Livestrong would raise a lot less if LA wasn't connected to them.

Not trying to justify the doping, just saying that there is good and bad in every situation.

wombatK wrote:As mentioned in a number of posts, there are serious concerns about how littleLivestrong does for cancer research (these days, nada, zip), and how much of LA's involvement is self-serving. At times in the past as much as 55 cents in thedollar donated to Livestrong has been used in running Livestrong - an appallingly high proportion that raises serious doubts on its purpose.

I think you would be surprised. It is a bad state of affairs that large charities do take so much to run them, but 55 cents in the dollar is by no means exceptionally high.

I recall many many years back that it bacame public knoweledge that Channel seven took out of the donations received the market value of advertising that was foregone over the weekend (there was NO advertising during the 26 hours of Telethon to that time.) That and other expenses pretty much took out the bulk of what we would hear about being pledged.

While they freely tell us how much they have collected over the decades, they are not so free about telling us about disbursements, jus that it goes into The Telethon Trust. I presume that a Harvard Business School graduate could work it out but most of us not that.

ColinOldnCranky wrote:I think you would be surprised. It is a bad state of affairs that large charities do take so much to run them, but 55 cents in the dollar is by no means exceptionally high.

It's really unfair to the well-administered genuine charities to tar them all with the same brush.

A loss of 55 cents in the dollar (or yield of 45 cents) is quite high.

You'll have a damned hard time finding any praise given to charities or philanthropists in the Murdoch press. But if you look past that bias, the facts in the tables here in their sensationalised Millions in Donations blown on admin costs report shows just how bad Livestrong is - the average is 22% and only one was as poor as Livestrong's 55%.

The American http://www.charitywatch.org/toprated.html can manage to find a heck of a lot of charities that distribute more than 75 cents in the dollar to their causes. They suggestanything below 65 cents in the dollar is not reasonable.

Even Livestrong improved it's game and got closer to the 75% after public scrutiny from AIP after 2010, and perhaps also as the heat generated by questions on LA's performances intensified over the last 2 years.

Prior to then, Livestrong's high administration costs were likely sucking up tens of millionsthat other cancer-related charities could have put to better use, so it's difficult to beawestruck by LA's "goodness".

WombatK

Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us -Jerry Garcia

Well, if you read his biography he was a bit of a tearaway but the influence of a strong-willed single parent kept him going in the right direction. Unfortunately that may also have contributed to a Win-At-All-Costs attitude, but there you go.

clackers wrote: Unfortunately that may also have contributed to a Win-At-All-Costs attitude, but there you go.

Single parenting does not cause or contribute to a win-at-all-costs attitude. It's simple bad parenting, and two peopleare just as capable of that neglect as is a single parent - even moreso if you think about all the males whokeep themselves absent from the family scene.

WombatK

Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us -Jerry Garcia

wombatK wrote:Single parenting does not cause or contribute to a win-at-all-costs attitude. It's simple bad parenting, and two peopleare just as capable of that neglect as is a single parent - even moreso if you think about all the males whokeep themselves absent from the family scene.

Who is online

About the Australian Cycling Forums

The largest cycling discussion forum in Australia for all things bike; from new riders to seasoned bike nuts, the Australian Cycling Forums are a welcoming community where you can ask questions and talk about the type of bikes and cycling topics you like.